This reminds of a rant I’ve always meant to have. I just hate when the actors in a movie based on an old TV show claim they aren’t going to be patterning themselves after the actors and/or show, and further imply, or outright claim, that the show wasn’t good or somehow not based on the earlier great work or whatever. And then the movie comes out and there’s Dustin Hoffman doing a Cyril Richard impression as Capt Hook (from the 50s TV version with Mary Martin), or Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston doing their best to emulate John Astin and Carolyn Jones. It’s not that they shouldn’t emulate/imitate them — since the actors in question nailed the parts and are well and deservedly loved for it, it would be insane not to. But to claim they’re not going to do it, or not doing it, or that they haven’t even seen the old show — come on. (Was there ever a nicer guy than Astin’s Gomez, or a hotter Morticia than Jones’? Jones’ Morticia was right up there with Rigg’s Peel.)

At least when the Beverly Hillbillies movie came out, they all obviously copied the well-loved actors in the original (and it was a better movie than I thought it would be, perhaps because of that) and made no bones about it. (Jim Varney made a darned good Jeb, surprisingly to me.)

#2: For sake of pedanticism… the two acceptable English plurals of “octopus” are “octopusses” and “octopodes”. “Octopus” has Greek roots, not latin, so it pedantically pluralizes using Greek forms, not latin.

Fowlers Modern English Usage (as cited by Wikipedia) even claims that if the word for the mollusc came from latin it would be “octopes” and pluralize as “octopedes”, not “octopi”. Either way, latin or greek, the plural would have a d in it and not end in an i.

#4 Blaise, not to be a pedant killer, but the Oxford English Dictionary lists octopi as correct as does Merriam Webster. True that the OED describes it as rare; nevertheless, rare does not mean it is incorrect.
I assume you never use the terms “homophobia” or “flammable.” (Those are my word peeves)

I remember a film student’s movie called “Looking for Gomez” that was made at my alma mater of FSU when I was an undergrad. It was a very interesting take on a girl searching for the closest real world counter-part to her ideal man, Gomez Adams. I particularly recall a scene where she is hanging out at a fencing competition looking for likely prospects.

Well, I have always been an Addams fan, and I have never — for the life of me– ever been able to figure out what was supposed to be so weird about that family.

Ah, well, you see, this was the prehistoric era known as the 50s, or at least everyone else in the known universe was ***assumed*** to be Barney Fife or Opee, so a quirky, liberal, almost hippy, nonconformist was like… being from another planet. lol I mean, can you imagine the Addams family at a Republican rally? It would be hard to tell which one would be running away in terror faster. Well, at least until the Addams came back with some crazy plot to get back at the Repugs for the insult(s). 😉

Kagehi, I am afraid I have to correct you. The cartoons that the TV show was based on got started in the 1930’s. The TV show (The original one) was on from 1964 through 1966. I guess this would still be prehistoric for you. (Not an insult, I am merely being snarky.)

Count me in as a major Emma Peel fan, in fact I have several
posters of her in my humble abode, including the one from the
episode about the “Hellfire” club where she’s wearing a spiked
dog collar,a corset, kinkey boots, and a snake around her
arm! I also Iam in love with Yvonne Craig “Batgirl” and
Marta kristen “Judy Robinson” from “Lost in Space”.

Well, they were dang healthy as a family, I always thought. The parents were madly in love with one another and didn’t care who knew it. They were devoted to their children! They treated the hired help as good as one of the family! They always went out of their way to help strangers in need, they gave generously to charitable causes (in terms of both time and money)! And they even held “high culture” in high regard!

Well, you guys can remember fictional leather-clad women from your pubescent youth all you want; I still vividly recall the stirrings caused by my first sight of a leather-clad Suzi Quatro on Top of the Pops. And she had the distinct advantage of being real and therefore, howver distantly, attainable.

I have to agree on admiring Gomez Addams. wonderful fellow, love to sit back and tip a pint with him. I remember when he ran for Mayor. “Addams, he’s a Smoker!”
I think what made Morticia and Emma Peel attractive was their quirky, original personalities. Oh, and the tight black clothing didn’t hurt. . .

Ah, you do have good taste PZed. I had a major TV crush on John Astin even before Gomez (I’m Dickens, He’s Fenster) and the Gomez character just deepened it. Morticia was a role model of sorts in spite of the hobble dress, and we all thought of them as the ideal family.

Wow! I’m watching John Astin on the Twilight Zone right now. It’s serendipity! Or a miracle! Or a completely random coincidence! In any case, he’s a pioneer in a doomed wagon train. I love when things like this come up, and I have to do a double-take when I recognize an actor.

I’m not so sure Gomez would be considered a liberal, Kagehi. He made his money on the stock market, and was a venture capitalist and land speculator as well. (On the other hand, IIRC, J.K. Galbraith made his fortune playing the international money markets, gambling on the failure of various economies. So if Galbraith is a liberal, Addams could be one, too.) I believe it’s established as canon in the Addams Family universe that Gomez sold short in 1929.

I’ve always felt that if I had an unlimited supply of money, I would be Gomez Addams. Although realistically, I have more in common with Uncle Fester. (BTW, if you’re a Fester fan, you really should watch the 1935 film Mad Love. Fester is clearly based on the look of Peter Lorre as Dr. Gogol, but Mad Love is a straight horror film, and Gogol is a sadistic madman.)